R8/9 - Overlooked greatness?

[holgerf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even though the R9 + Motor Drive/DMR combos are big and heavy, I can carry it all day and not tire.

 

Come on - what’s your age???

 

Best

Holger

[jacobh]

>>QUOTE

I have fairly large hands, so it works for me, but I could see it being a little too beefy for some........UNQUOTE<<<<<

 

Quite interesting to see how appreciations differ from user to user. I myself have resisted to be lured to the R8/9 for several years although I liked the technical features. I was appalled by what to my taste was the horrible styling and moreover I experienced the grip of the body as very unpleasant, even although I have fairly big hands also. There simply is no good place to dig ones fingertips in.

Only with the motor drive the grip becomes secure. Even then, in comparison, a Dynax 9 for example feels a lot more comfortable and stable to me.

Nevertheless, I got my R9 (with the motor drive) finally ....., but mainly for its technical content.

 

With regard to to the claimed screen "brightness" of the R range, I tend to concur with many on this forum that the SL's remain unmatched. But then the R's like almost all other modern competitors models syphon an appreciable amount of light away for the light metering and, where applicable, AF..

Edited December 22, 2009 by jacobh
Quote marked

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gvaliquette]

Come on - what’s your age???

 

Best

Holger

 

61

 

Guy

[wildlightphoto]

I admit it too, I may never sell my SL, but it is seldom used these days. The R8 bodies have taken over, and it would be very hard to go back to SL bodies only [but not impossible

 

Same for me.

[Guest mc_k]

how does focusing accuracy compare to a rangefinder? For example, how would it compare to an M at 10-12 ft.? I've seen a theoretical thread on this subject, but am more interested in how things go in practice.

Edited December 24, 2009 by mckeough_k

[mgcd]

how does focusing accuracy compare to a rangefinder? For example, how would it compare to an M at 10-12 ft.? I've seen a theoretical thread on this subject, but am more interested in how things go in practice.

 

Is this a serious question? Focusing accuracy is more a question for the M not for the R.

[cidereye]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

how does focusing accuracy compare to a rangefinder? For example, how would it compare to an M at 10-12 ft.? I've seen a theoretical thread on this subject, but am more interested in how things go in practice.

 

Erm, focus then shoot. Result = Spot on just like any manual focus SLR camera.

 

Don't quite get this question on any level, sorry ......

[topoxforddoc]

Erm, focus then shoot. Result = Spot on just like any manual focus SLR camera.

 

Don't quite get this question on any level, sorry ......

 

The OP asked about focussing wide angles lenses on the R8/9. It is easier to focus WA lenses on a rangefinder than a SLR (and long focal lengths are easier on a SLR than on a RF). This is important if you're using the lens wide open when DOF is more limited.

 

From experience with my R8 & R9 as well as my M cameras, it is hard to be spot on focussing WA lenses on the SLR cameras.

 

Best wishes,

[tobey bilek]

It was established 40 years ago, the RF focus is better with wide lenses and and SLR for teles.

The break point is 90 mm where they are both about equal.

 

Unfortunately I can`t put my hand on data at this point. The short and skinny is the RF base is very side and the split image prism is esentially a base of the width of the lens mount.

 

My old and new Nikons are difficult to focus with wide lenses. The split prism just does not move enough as the focus is rotated. The Leica R are the same way.

 

The SL and SL2 were the dream to focus SLR cameras. They had big enough prisms on top and they were convex on the bottom. The screens were bright, had splits in the center, and a very fine micro prism in the rest of the field. Cost in money and weight was enormous, but they worked better than anything before or since.

 

Ideally one needs to interchange the screen to match the lens characteristics, speed and focal length. You can make a screen where half does not block out at F8, but you loose accuracy with fast lenses. This is done by changing the angles of the split prisms.

 

Brightness and contrast for focus are the other trade offs. To make it bright, use a smoother finish. To make it easier to focus outside the split, a less smooth finish is required, but then it gets dim.

 

Nikon had a whole array of different screens suitable for different lenses, speed and FL.

 

I can`t find the cross ref right now, but a compatability chart was posted on the net.

[earleygallery]

Personal Leica R-mount favorites - Leicaflex SL or R3.

 

 

I only have the R3, owned from new, and its been an excellent camera. Its quite large and heavy but so easy to use it feels much like using my M2. Definately the most underrated Leica but maybe I shouldn't be posting this because I think I'd like to buy another one and don't want you lot pushing prices up!!

[Sandokan]

how does focusing accuracy compare to a rangefinder? For example, how would it compare to an M at 10-12 ft.? I've seen a theoretical thread on this subject, but am more interested in how things go in practice.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/95405-m8-focus-focussing.html

Jaap produced this thread.

 

As for the R9 - I saw it in a shop window. I went in and picked it up. 1 Hour later I returned and bought it. It was love at first sight and the DMR makes it even better, but I will happily buy another to use with film.

[Guest mc_k]

Erm, focus then shoot. Result = Spot on just like any manual focus SLR camera.

 

Don't quite get this question on any level, sorry ......

 

focusing on moving subjects is not so cut-and-dried. I should have been more specific with my question including focal length.

Edited December 25, 2009 by mckeough_k

[Guest mc_k]

...The break point is 90 mm where they are both about equal...

 

thanks, this is exactly the info I was looking for

[yst]

Very interesting subject and nice to see discussed and bring up more of the enthusiastic of the R system again...!

 

I always liked the R, used the RE, R7, then the R8. Now have a R9 and a R6.2. I did not feel the need of "up-grade" to the R9, though had a chance in which Leica had swapped my R8 for a R9 as a part of sponsorship for one of my exhibitions in Canada, shortly after the introduction of the new R9. It is definitely a great camera, on important trips, I would bring a R9 along with the R6.2, but the M system would always be there with the R, since they have different tasks. Only when goes to rough areas (social/society wise), or purposes mainly for street photography, or in short travels with less things, then I would bring the M system only.

 

I am sure there are still many Leica people out there who are very much appreciating their R systems, and I truly hope so. Whenever I look at the slides on the light table, or projecting the slides in large halls during slide-shows, the feeling of excitement as well often audience's urges of response is hard to describe by words...

 

I much prefer to have the "actual" physical slides on my hands, then the "virtual" digital files on cyber space...

Edited December 25, 2009 by yst

[rsolomon]

I never really thought the R8/R9 were "overlooked greatness" to me and from my knowledge they were always recognized as great tools.

For a manual focus film SLR is there any more you could possibly want ?

I think this was recognized all along -

[thrid]

I never really thought the R8/R9 were "overlooked greatness" to me and from my knowledge they were always recognized as great tools.

For a manual focus film SLR is there any more you could possibly want ?

I think this was recognized all along -

 

Well, in terms of sales the R8/R9 were never even in the same ballpark as the M-series. If rumors are to believed there is a mountain of unsold, freshly boxed bodies out there.

 

Also as far back as I can remember people have knocked the R8/9. The SL or R6.2 have always been held up as the benchmark, although to be frank I think a lot of this chatter e from people who never really used the 3 cameras for a length of time, if at all. Personally I own an R8, SL and the R6.2.

 

The SL has that brilliant viewfinder and is quite literally built like a tank, but there are other aspects that are less thrilling. The antiquated match needle meter and battery requirements, the round corners in the viewfinder, the film advance lever with it's enormous angle of operation, the inability to exchange focus screens without disassembly and the lens restrictions due to the mirror clearance come to mind.

 

The R6.2 really is a flawed masterpiece. It's incredibly compact and the viewfinder is as good as the one in the R8/9. Ergonomics are excellent and the metering system is modern and accurate. Build quality is outstanding and it will take all R lenses. The deal breaker is the mushy shutter release with it's enormous amount of travel. This has to be the worst release I've ever seen on a camera. I asked Don Goldberg about this and the response was a lot of head shaking. It may be a useable if you are doing landscapes or work where split second is timing is not critical, but otherwise it's a real problem. A real shame though, because if it wasn't for that reason the R6.2 would be an almost unbeatable camera.

 

The R8/9 on the other hand gets it right. I may not be as compact as the R6.2, but it's got the features, ergonomics and responsiveness to make it an outstanding tool for all types of work.

 

So, yes, I think it's fair to say that the R8/9 have been under-appreciated by the masses, but has been recognized for is excellence by many those who actually spent some time with it.

Edited December 27, 2009 by thrid

[rsolomon]

.......Well, in terms of sales the R8/R9 were never even in the same ballpark as the M-series. If rumors are to believed there is a mountain of unsold, freshly boxed bodies out there.

 

So, yes, I think it's fair to say that the R8/9 have been under-appreciated by the masses.......

 

.......but has been recognized for is excellence by many those who actually spent some time with it.

 

 

I completely agree, on the sales item, but i do not necessarily agree that what ever sells "alot"is therefore the recongized leader.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that Leica really isn't in the camera business - they are in the lens business. Prior to digital the lens quality played the most (by far) critical part in determining image quality, today with digital it seems that its a combination of the sensor and the lens - this has been, and will likely continue to a create pressure for leica as well as their customers as both search for the top image quailty.

[giordano]

The other thing to keep in mind is that Leica really isn't in the camera business - they are in the lens business.

 

If Leica believed that they would be selling lenses into the same markets as Schneider, Angénieux and Zeiss, rather than only for their own mounts (with a half-hearted exception for 4-3rds).

[rsolomon]

If Leica believed that they would be selling lenses into the same markets as Schneider, Angénieux and Zeiss, rather than only for their own mounts (with a half-hearted exception for 4-3rds).

 

With due respect -- it doesn't matter what Leica thinks - thay have make numerous bad marketing moves by "thinking" --- and on the other hand they have made some great ones too.

 

But i think Leica knows this well, Leica is a lens company - NOT a camera company, the camera body is simply the tool used to expose light to film or sensor - what makes the difference in image quality is the lens and that is the sweet spot of Leica.

 

On selling into other camera markets - there have been many dicussions on this topic - my take is that Leica does not want to and can not produce on that scale while maintaining the heritage, quality, and brand that is the heart of the company.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[roguewave]

With due respect -- it doesn't matter what Leica thinks - thay have make numerous bad marketing moves by "thinking" --- and on the other hand they have made some great ones too.

 

But i think Leica knows this well, Leica is a lens company - NOT a camera company, the camera body is simply the tool used to expose light to film or sensor - what makes the difference in image quality is the lens and that is the sweet spot of Leica.

 

On selling into other camera markets - there have been many dicussions on this topic - my take is that Leica does not want to and can not produce on that scale while maintaining the heritage, quality, and brand that is the heart of the company.

 

I think this is way off the mark. Orders for the M9 are at 20,000 & climbing. At somewhere around 7000 US, that's a lot of cash for Leica. BTW, NO ONE else has made an M9. There is no competition for a ff digital rf as yet. That's an auspicious place to be if you ask me. They are differently a camera company. Truth is most people that shoot film can by a perfectly fine body for 1/10th the price. Same in the digital world. Yes the lenses are the cornerstone and hallmark of Leica, but those cameras, past & present are remarkable. I find it hard to believe that someone would say that Leica is not a camera company. I see these photographs of all my favorite image makers with this little Leica camera hanging from their necks since I was born. That's not a shabby record. I shoot with my Leicas R&M everyday. Don't tell me they aren't a camera company.